DISTRICT COURT
ARAPAHOE COUNTY, COLORADO
7325 S. Potomac Street
Centennial, CO 80112
Phone: (303) 645-6600
MATTHEW SNIDER
Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF AURORA, COLORADO,
▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲
Defendant.
Attorneys for Plaintiff: Case Number:
Scott E. Gessler (28944),
[email protected] Geoffrey N. Blue (32684),
[email protected] Division:
Gessler Blue LLC
7350 E Progress Pl., Suite 100
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
Tel: (720) 839-6637
COMPLAINT
Introduction
1. In this case, the Aurora City Council ignored its city charter and override the
express will of its voters. Specifically, in 2014 city voters overwhelmingly rejected an
ordinance that would have repealed the city’s ban on pit bulls. Under the Aurora City
Charter, the City Council may not adopt an ordinance previously rejected by voters. But in
January 2021 the City Council nonetheless expressly adopted an ordinance that Aurora’s
voters rejected in 2014.
Parties
2. Matthew Snider is a resident and registered voter residing at 6109 S. Oak Hill
Way, Aurora, Colorado 80016.
3. The City of Aurora is a municipal corporation. Its City Hall is located at 15151
E. Alameda Parkway, Aurora, Arapahoe County, Colorado.
Jurisdiction and Venue
4. Jurisdiction is proper under Colo. Const. art. VI, Section 9.
5. Venue is proper under C.R.C.P. 98(c).
General Allegations
6. The City of Aurora is a home rule municipality.
7. As a home rule municipality, Aurora must allow its citizens the right of
initiative of referendum. Colo. Const. art. V, Section 1(9).
8. A “referendum” includes a measure referred by the City Council to a vote of
the registered electors in Aurora.
9. The City of Aurora has a fifteen-year history with respect to allowing pit bulls
within its boundaries.
10. In 2005, it passed Ordinance No. 2005-84, which prohibited ownership of pit
bulls, except for instances where the city had issued licenses. This prohibition was
subsequently codified as Section 14-75 of the municipal code.
11. The City updated Section 14-75 in 2010 (effective 2011) when it passed
Ordinance No. 2011-11, and it updated the code again in 2011 when it reduced the number
of prohibited pit bull breeds and granted exceptions for service dogs.
12. In 2014, the City Council considered an ordinance that would repeal Section
14-75 (the City’s then-current ban on pit bulls).
13. Rather than adopt or reject the proposed ordinance, on July 14, 2014, the City
Council instead passed Resolution R2014-42 (Exhibit 1), which referred the proposed
ordinance to a vote of the people.
14. In Resolution R2014-42 the City Council explicitly exercised its power to
initiate a referred measure under Section 6-4 of the Aurora City Charter, and Section 54-
131(a) of the Aurora Municipal City Code.
2
15. Section 6-4 of the City Charter is entitled “The referendum” and states in part
that “[t]he council, on its own motion, shall have the power to submit at a regular or special
election any proposed ordinance to a vote of the people in manner as in this Charter
provided.”
16. Section 54-131 is entitled “referral by city council,” and subsection (a) states in
full: “[t]he city council shall have the power to submit any proposed or adopted ordinance or
any question to a vote of the registered electors without the receipt of a petition. Submission
by city council shall be by resolution, except as otherwise required by the city Charter.”
17. The referendum language submitted to the voters stated as follows:
KEEPING OF PIT BULLS
SHALL THE PEOPLE OF AURORA ADOPT AN ORDINANCE
ALLOWING PIT BULLS BACK INTO THEIR CITY?
YES _____ NO ______
18. This referendum appeared as Ballot question 2D on November 4, 2014.
19. At the November 2014 election, the City of Aurora voters overwhelmingly
rejected the ordinance to repeal Section 14-75. Only 35,515 (or 35.60%) voted Yes. By
contrast 64,251 (or 64.40%) voted No.
20. As a result, the City of Council did not adopt the proposed ordinance, and the
pit bull ban remained in effect.
Claim for Relief
(Violation of Aurora City Charter, Section 6-6)
21. Plaintiff incorporates all previous allegations.
22. The Aurora City Charter specifically addresses the consequences of the
electorate’s rejection of a referred measure.
23. The Aurora City Charter prohibits the Council from adopting an ordinance
that was previously rejected by the electorate. Specifically, Section 6-6 of the City Charter
states in relevant part:
3
A proposed ordinance adopted or rejected by electoral vote under either the
initiative or referendum cannot be revived, repealed, amended, or passed
except by electoral vote, provided, however, that the council shall have the
power to adopt ordinances making technical amendments thereto which do
not change the intent of an initiated or referred ordinance, or amendments
required by the Colorado Constitution as it is amended from time to time.
24. The City Council may not pass an ordinance that has been previously rejected
by the electorate.
25. The City Council may, however, submit another referendum to the electorate.
Section 6-6 states in relevant part: “The council shall have power to resubmit to electoral
vote any proposed ordinance reviving, repealing or amending an ordinance which has been
adopted or rejected by electoral vote upon its own initiative and without any petition
therefor.”
26. Despite the overwhelming rejection of the ordinance that sought to repeal the
pit bull ban, and despite the clear language of Section 6-6 prohibiting the City Council from
passing the previously-rejected ordinance, the City Council nonetheless passed an ordinance
repealing the pit bull ban contained in Section 14-75.
27. On December 7, 2020, the City Council conducted a study session in which it
considered an ordinance that that would repeal the City’s pit bull ban in Section 14-75.
28. On January 11, 2021, the City Council passed Ordinance 2020-70 (Exhibit 2),
which lifted the ban on pit bulls.
29. As part of its consideration on January 11, 2021, the City Council reviewed a
document that characterized the November 4, 2014, ballot issue as an “advisory, nonbinding
ballot question” (Exhibit 2).
30. In fact, the ordinance rejected by the electorate in 2014 bound City Council.
The City Council referred that ordinance under Section 6-4 of the City Charter, and the
ballot language itself asked whether the “People of Aurora” shall “adopt” an ordinance.
31. Ordinance 2020-70, which repealed the City’s ban on pit bulls contained in
Section 14-75, was neither a technical amendment nor an amendment required by the
Colorado Constitution.
32. Ordinance 2020-70 violated Section 6-6 of the City Charter.
4
33. Ordinance 2020-70, which repealed the ban contained in Section 14-75 of the
Aurora Municipal code, is null and void.
Prayer for Relief
Plaintiff requests this Court:
A. Declare Ordinance 2020-70 void and without effect,
B. Require the city to reinstate Section 14-75, which was illegally and improperly
repealed by the Aurora City Council, and
C. Order all such other appropriate relief, including payment of attorney fees and
costs.
Dated: May 27, 2021.
GESSLER BLUE LLC
s/ Scott E. Gessler
Scott E. Gessler
Plaintiff’s Address:
6109 S. Oak Hill Way
Aurora, Colorado 80016
5
EFFECTIVE DATE: 7-fc(-IG(
RESOLUTION NO. R2014- 42.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AURORA,
COLORADO, SUBMITTING TO A VOTE OF THE REGISTERED
ELECTORS OF THE CITY AT THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION OF
NOVEMBER 4, 2014, A BALLOT QUESTION REPEALING SECTION 14-75
OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING THE UNLAWFUL KEEPING OF PIT
BULLS
WHEREAS, in 2005, the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Aurora, Colorado
(the "City") adopted Ordinance No. 2005-84 enacting Section 14-75 of the City Code, which
section makes it unlawful for any person to have, own, possess, keep, exercise control over,
maintain, harbor, transport, or sell within the City any pit bull (the "2005 Ordinance"); and
WHEREAS, only licensed pit bulls that were living in the City as of the effective date of
the 2005 Ordinance or are presently being kept as service animals are permitted within the City;
and
WHEREAS, the 2005 Ordinance was adopted as a proactive measure to address the
public health and safety concerns that had arisen as a result of the keeping of pit bulls in the City;
and
WHEREAS, recently, an ordinance repealing Section 14-75 of the City Code was
submitted to the Council for their consideration (the "~014 Ordinance"); and
WHEREAS, acknowledging the heightened level of public interest in the issue of
whether pit bulls should be kept within the City, the Council finds and determines that it is
appropriate to exercise its authority under Section 6-4 of the City Charter and Section 54-131(a)
of the City Code to refer the 2014 Ordinance to a vote of the registered electors of the City at the
November 4,2014, statewide general election.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF AURORA, COLORADO:
Section 1. There is hereby submitted to a vote of the registered electors of the City at
the statewide general election to be held November 4, 2014, the question of repealing Section
14-75 of the City Code regarding the unlawful keeping of pit bulls.
Section 2. The form of the ordinance repealing Section 14-75 and amending related
provisions of the City Code is attached to this resolution as Appendix A.
Section 3. The following question shall be submitted to a vote of the registered
electors of the City at the statewide general election to be held November 4, 2014:
1
"KEEPING OF PIT BULLS
SHALL THE PEOPLE OF AURORA ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ALLOWING
PIT BULLS BACK INTO THEIR CITY?
YES_ NO __"
Section 4. All resolutions or parts of resolutions of the City in conflict herewith are
expressly repealed.
RESOLVED AND PASSED this 14th day of _ _ _-',...... J1-J-y_ _ _ _ _ , 2014.
lt......
ATTEST:
,/
2
CITY OF AURORA
Council Agenda Item Continuation Page
Item Title: For an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado, Repealing Section 14-75 of the City Code
Pertaining to the Ban on Restricted Breed Dogs and Amending Sections 14-4 and 14-73
Item Initiator: Council Member Hiltz and Council Member Coombs
Staff Source: Anthony Youngblood Animal Services Manager
Legal Source: Tim Joyce Assistant City Attorney
Outside Speaker: N/A
Date of Change: 12/21/2020
COUNCIL MEETING DATES:
Study Session: 12/7/2020
Regular Meeting: 12/21/2020
ITEM SUMMARY (Brief description of changes or updates with documents included.)
October 24, 2005, City Council approved Ordinance 2005-84 amending Chapter 14 of the City Code to
add a new section, section 14-75, pertaining to prohibiting keeping, owning, or possessing pit bulls
and other restricted breeds of dogs in the City. The ordinance became effective November 26, 2005.
May 8, 2009, the 10th Circuit Court upheld section 14-75 of the City Code in the case of Am. Canine
Foundation v. City of Aurora, 618 F. Supp. 2nd 1271 (D. Colo. 2009). The Court determined the City
had a legitimate purpose in enacting pit bull and restricted breed ban ordinance that was the
protection of the health and safety of the public and upheld the ordinance.
May 9, 2011, City Council approved Ordinance 2011-11 amending the restricted breed ordinance
reducing the number of restricted breed dogs from ten breeds to three breeds. The three breeds
prohibited by section 14-75 was consistent with the breeds restricted by surrounding jurisdictions.
November 4, 2014, the citizens of Aurora, Colorado, voted on the advisory, nonbinding ballot question:
Shall he People of A o a adop an o dinance allo ing pi b ll back in o he ci ? The ballo
e ion failed i h 64,251, o 64.4%, No o e and 35,515, o 35.6%, Ye o e .
August 17, 2020, City Council opted not to submit to a ballot question for the Statewide General
Election on November 3, 2020, to repeal section 14-75 of the City Code pertaining to the unlawful
keeping of restricted breed dogs.
December 7, 2020, City Council approved to move this item to a regular Council Meeting.
2
426
14.75 Unlawful Keeping of a Restricted Breed has been a municipal ordinance since 2006. Currently
he o dinance i diffic l o enfo ce d e o he n mbe of dog hidden in he ci . Al o fo e ic ed
breeds that have not violated the ordinance, other than being in the city, Animal Services is taking
them out of homes and may not be able to find another home to place them in out of the city. As for
restricted breed or any dog that may be aggressive or dangerous we now have an ordinance to deal
with the actions committed by the dog.
427
ORDINANCE NO. 2020- ____
A BILL
FOR AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AURORA,
COLORADO, REPEALING SECTION 14-75 OF THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO THE
BAN ON RESTRICTED BREED DOGS
WHEREAS, the City adopted revisions to the Aurora City Code Chapter 14 on
November 2, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the revisions to Chapter 14 address aggressive, dangerous, and potentially
dangerous animals; and
WHEREAS, the aggressive, dangerous, and potentially dangerous dog provisions render
the breed restriction unnecessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF AURORA, COLORADO:
Section 1. The City Code of the City of Aurora, Colorado, is hereby amended by adding
and deleting to subsections (2) and (7) of section 14-4, which subsections shall read as follows:
Sec. 14-4. - Impoundment; court proceedings; disposition of animals.
(2) Length of impoundment. If there is probable cause to believe that there is a
violation of section 14-5, 14-6, 14-7, 14-8, 14-10, 14-11, 14-12, 14-13, 14-71, 14-72, 14-
74, 14-75, 14-101, 14-102, 14-131, 141-134 or 14-161, the animal may be taken into
custody by the animal protection officer or member of the police department and
impounded in the animal shelter in a humane manner. Except as otherwise provided in
subsection (7), such impoundment shall be for a period of not less than five (5) business
days, unless earlier claimed. If the owner fails to claim the impounded animal after five
(5) business days subsequent to being notified or reasonable efforts to notify have been
made, the animal shall be deemed surrendered to the Aurora Animal Services Division.
The owner shall still be responsible for payment of all fees and costs for the
impoundment of the animal.
(7) Court findings; release of animal; surrender. If a complaint has been filed in the
municipal court against the owner of an animal impounded for violation of section 14-6,
14-7, 14-8, 14-10, 14-71, or 14-74, or 14-75, the animal shall not be released from
impoundment except on the order of the municipal judge. For violations of section 14-5,
14-11, 14-12, or 14-13, a field supervisor or the division manager have the discretion to
release the animal without the need for a court ordered release or may hold the animal for
an order from the municipal judge. The municipal judge may, upon making a finding
that the alleged owner has failed to appear for any court date on the complaint, order the
42
animal to be surrendered to the Aurora Animal Services Division. When, at a court
disposition hearing for release or surrender of an animal that has been found by the
municipal court, by a preponderance of the evidence, to be a restricted breed, or the
animal is in violation of any provision of section 14-75, the animal shall be ordered
surrendered unless the owner produces evidence deemed sufficient by the court pursuant
to section 14-75(5) that the restricted breed will be permanently taken out of the city. At
any other hearing for release or surrender the animal shall be ordered surrendered to the
Aurora Animal Services Division unless the municipal judge finds, by a preponderance
of the evidence, there exists reasonable assurance that the animal can be safely
maintained, cared for and controlled without danger to the community and that the animal
does not create a nuisance to the surrounding neighbors or community. In determining
whether the animal can be safely maintained, cared for and controlled by its owner, the
judge shall consider all relevant and reliable evidence, whether or not the evidence is
admissible at trial, including, without limitation, pre-bite or post-bite behavior indicative
of aggressive or dangerous tendencies regardless of impoundment status. If the animal s
owner wishes to have a behavior assessment performed before the surrender hearing, he
or she shall notify and work with Aurora Animal Services to set up and complete such
assessment follo ing the Aurora Animal Service s shelter policies. Aurora Animal
Services shall include language giving written notification (in bold print) of the right to a
behavior assessment to any owner of an animal impounded and set for an impound
hearing under this section. If the animal s o ner chooses to conduct an assessment, the
findings from each assessment shall be shared with the other party within five (5)
business days of the assessment being conducted, and at least five (5) business days
before the date of the impound hearing provided for in Section 14-4(7). The assessment
shall be presented to the Judge at the impound hearing. The Judge shall also hear any
proffered evidence of the circumstances of the initial bite including whether it occurred
on the o ner s propert , including provocation and evidence relating to the abilit to
keep the animal on/with the owner utilizing any requirements able to be taken by the
owner to minimize any recurrence. All options in lieu of surrender shall be considered.
An order of surrender of an animal shall not relieve the owner of payment of fees, costs,
or restitution which resulted from the impoundment. When making the determination the
animal can be safely maintained, cared for and controlled without danger to the
community and that the animal does not create a nuisance to the surrounding neighbors or
community the municipal court judge shall make a determination the animal is:
a. A potentially dangerous animal;
b. A dangerous animal; or
c. An aggressive animal.
Section 2. The City Code of the City of Aurora, Colorado, is hereby amended
section 14-75 pertaining to the unlawful keeping of restricted breed dogs.
Sec. 14-75. - Unlawful keeping of restricted breeds.
42
(1) Prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to have, own, possess, keep,
exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, or sell within the city any restricted
breed.
(2) Definitions.
a. "Immediate family" for purposes of this chapter, includes the owner's
spouse, child, parent, or sibling.
b. "Handler" for purposes of this chapter, means an individual with a
disability who is utilizing a service dog, as that term is defined in this chapter, to
do work or perform tasks directly related to the individual's disability. If over the
age of 18, the handler must also be the owner of the service dog. If under the age
of 18, the handler's legal guardian must be the owner of the service dog.
c. "Muzzle" for purposes of this chapter, shall mean a restraining device
made of metal, plastic, leather, cloth or a combination of these materials that,
when fitted and fastened over a snout/mouth/head, prevents the dog from biting
but allows room for the dog to breath and pant. The muzzle must be made in a
manner that will not cause injury to the dog or interfere with its vision or
respiration but must prevent it from biting any person or animal.
d. "Restricted breed" for purposes of this chapter, is defined as any dog that
is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire
Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits or genetic
markers of any one or more of the above breeds, or any dog exhibiting those
distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the standards
established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club for any of the
above breeds.
e. "Secure temporary enclosure" for purposes of this chapter, is a secure
enclosure used for purposes of transporting a restricted breed and which includes
a top and bottom permanently attached to the sides except for a "door" for
removal of the restricted breed. Such enclosure must be of such material and
secured with a keyed or combination lock so that the restricted breed cannot exit
the enclosure on its own.
f. "Secure pen or enclosure" for the purposes of this chapter, shall mean a
six-sided structure designed to prevent entry of a child or escape of a restricted
breed. Such pen or structure must have minimum dimensions of five-feet by ten-
feet by five-feet in height per animal housed within and must have secure chain-
link sides, a secured top, and a secure bottom. The enclosure must provide
protection from the elements for the dog. All structures erected to house a
restricted breed must comply with all zoning and building ordinances and
regulations of the city and shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. All
secure pens or enclosures must be approved by the Aurora Animal Services
Division. The gate of the pen or enclosure shall be secured with a keyed or
combination lock.
g. "DNA testing" DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) is the genetic blueprint that
contain most of the genetic instructions for every canine's body make up (height,
430
weight, size etc.). DNA testing means a genetic analysis to identify key single-
nucleotide polymorphisms marker locations (genetic markers) that may detect the
breed, type and variety of a dog and may show the ancestral breed composition of
a particular dog.
h. "DNA test evidence an o ner ma , at the o ner's e pense, submit a
DNA sample to a veterinarian to test for the genetic history of a dog following the
Aurora Animal Services Division s polic on DNA collection. Such test should
look for the genetic markers for the following breeds: American Pit Bull Terrier,
American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. In order to be
considered a restricted breed the DNA testing must demonstrate a genetic
blueprint of excess of 50 percent restricted breed. The DNA test results shall
constitute prima facie evidence which the court may consider in establishing the
breed of the dog. DNA testing results shall override any subjective evidence
including observational findings to the contrary. If an owner indicates to a judge
that a DNA test will be performed, the court may issue appropriate orders as to
the release of the dog with any additional conditions that the court believes will
minimize any danger to the community during the pendency of the testing and
obtaining the results.
(3) Exceptions. The prohibition in subsection (1) shall not apply in the following
enumerated circumstances. Failure by the owner to comply and remain in compliance
with all the terms of any applicable exception may subject the restricted breed to
immediate impoundment and disposition.
a. The owner of a restricted breed who has applied for and received a city
license and who maintains the restricted breed at all times in compliance with the
restricted breed license requirements of subsection (4) of this section and all other
applicable requirements of this chapter, may keep a restricted breed within the
city.
b. The Aurora Animal Services Division may temporarily transport and
harbor any restricted breed for purposes of enforcing the provisions of this
chapter.
c. Any veterinarian while treating a restricted breed or holding such
restricted breed after treatment until claimed by the owner or released to an
animal protection officer.
d. A person may temporarily transport into and hold in the city a restricted
breed only for the purpose of showing such restricted breed in a place of public
exhibition, contest or show sponsored by a dog club association or similar
organization. However, the sponsor of the exhibition, contest, or show must
receive written permission from the city manager or designee, must obtain any
other permits or licenses required by city ordinance, and must provide protective
measures adequate to prevent restricted breeds from escaping or injuring the
public. The person who transports and holds a restricted breed for showing shall,
at all times when the restricted breed is being transported within the city to and
from the place of exhibition, contest, or show, keep the restricted breed confined
in a secure temporary enclosure locked with a keyed or combination lock and
431
bearing a caution sign affixed in a conspicuous location warning people a pit bull
is confined within.
e. The owner of a restricted breed may temporarily transport the restricted
breed through the city. During such transport, the owner may not stop within the
city for any reason not reasonably related to and necessary for travel. During
such travel, the owner shall keep the restricted breed muzzled and either in a
secure temporary enclosure or securely leashed with a leash no longer than four
feet in length held by someone 21 years of age or older who is capable of
effectively controlling the dog. Extension-style leashes may not be used. Leashes
may not be attached to inanimate objects.
f. The owner of a restricted breed that is the o ner s service animal ho has
applied for and received a license in accordance with subsection (4) of this
section, and who maintains the restricted breed at all times in compliance with the
restricted breed license requirements of subsection (4) of this section and all other
applicable requirements of this chapter, may keep a restricted breed that is a
service animal within the city. If the Aurora Animal Services Division or other
authorized city law enforcement officer makes contact with an owner of a
restricted breed not licensed pursuant to this section and the owner asserts that his
or her dog is a service animal, the owner shall be informed of this section and
instructed to obtain a license pursuant to subsection (4) below within 72 hours of
the initial contact. Failure to obtain a license pursuant to subsection (4) of this
section shall result in impoundment of the dog pursuant to subsection (5) of this
section.
g. A non-resident owner may temporarily transport into and hold in the city a
restricted breed that is the o ner s service animal for a period not exceeding two
weeks. During such temporary transport or holding, the owner shall keep the
restricted breed muzzled and securely leashed with a leash no longer than four
feet in length held by the owner who requires the use of the service animal. In the
event the owner, because of a disability, is not able to use a muzzle or leash no
longer than four feet in length, or in the event the use of a muzzle or a leash no
longer than four feet in length would interfere with the service animal's safe,
effective performance of work or tasks, the service animal must be otherwise
under the o ner s control.
h. An owner or handler of a designated service dog or designated emotional
support animal may be under 21 years of age.
(4) City License. The owner of a restricted breed that is a designated service animal
or a designated emotional support animal who has applied for and received a city license
shall be allowed to keep such restricted breed within the city. As a condition of issuance
of a city license, the owner shall at the time of application, comply with or otherwise
provide sufficient evidence that the owner is in compliance with all of the following
regulations:
a. The owner of the restricted breed shall provide proof of a current rabies
vaccination and shall pay an annual city license fee. The annual city license fee
shall be waived for a restricted breed that is a service animal.
432
b. The owner of the restricted breed shall keep current the city license for
such restricted breed through annual renewal. Such license is not transferable or
renewable except by the holder of the license.
c. The owner must be at least 21 years of age. This regulation shall be
waived for a restricted breed that is a designated service animal or a designated
emotional support animal.
d. The owner shall present to the city manager or designee proof that the
owner has homeowner's or renter's insurance with a minimum of $100,000.00 for
liability coverage which will cover any damage or injury caused by a restricted
breed during the 12-month period covered by the restricted breed. This regulation
shall be waived for a restricted breed that is a designated service animal or a
designated emotional support animal.
e. The owner shall, at the owner's own expense, have the restricted breed
spayed or neutered and shall present to the city manager or designee documentary
proof from a licensed veterinarian that this sterilization has been performed.
f. The owner shall, at the owner's own expense, have a microchip containing
an identification number implanted into the restricted breed. The owner shall
also, at the owner's expense, register the microchip number with a national data
bank and provide proof of such registration to the Aurora Animal Services
Division. The city manager or designee shall maintain a file containing the
registration numbers and names of the restricted breed and the names and
addresses of the owners. The owner shall notify the city manager or designee of
any change of address.
g. Except as stated below and at all times when a restricted breed is on the
property of the owner, the owner shall keep the restricted breed confined. When
outdoors, all restricted breeds shall be confined in a locked secure pen or
enclosure or with its owner or an adult at least 18 years of age in the rear yard
with the dog, and the rear yard enclosed by a six foot fence maintained in
accordance with the City Code.
h. No restricted breed may be kept on a porch, patio or in any part of a house
or structure that would allow the dog to exit such building on its own volition.
This regulation may be waived for a restricted breed that is a service animal if this
restriction interferes with the work or task the service animal is trained to
perform.
i. At all times when a restricted breed is away from the property of the
owner, the owner shall keep the restricted breed muzzled and either in a secure
temporary enclosure or securely leashed with a leash no longer than four feet in
length held by someone who is capable of effectively controlling the dog.
Extension-style leashes may not be used. Leashes may not be attached to
inanimate objects. In the event the owner, because of a disability, is not able to
use a leash or in the event the use of a muzzle or a leash would interfere with the
service animal's safe, effective performance of work or tasks, the service animal
must be otherwise under the handler's control at all times when away from the
433
property of the owner in a manner relayed to the city manager or designee at the
time of licensing. This regulation and the means for controlling the restricted
breed may be modified and portions may be waived for service animals by the
city manager or designee as determined on a case-by-case basis.
j. The owner shall immediately notify the Aurora Animal Services Division
in the event that the restricted breed is loose, stolen, at-large, unconfined, has
mauled, bitten, attacked, threatened, or in any way menaced another animal or
human, or has died.
k. No person applying for a city license for a restricted breed shall be granted
an intact license pursuant this chapter for such restricted breed.
l. Failure to comply with any of these conditions shall result in a revocation
of the license, impoundment, and disposition pursuant to subsection (5) of this
section.
(5) Impoundment. The Aurora Animal Services Division is authorized to
immediately impound any restricted breed found within the city limits which does not fall
within the exceptions listed in subsection (3) or (4). If the dog is found to be an
unlicensed restricted breed it shall be ordered surrendered or humanely euthanized unless
the owner produces evidence deemed sufficient by the court that the restricted breed is to
be permanently taken out of the city. Sufficient evidence must include, but is not limited
to, a notarized agreement from the person taking custody of the animal containing an
address and date of transfer. Additionally, the owner must consent to an in-home
inspection by the Aurora Animal Services Division within 30 days of release for the
purpose of verifying the dog's removal from the city. Prior to release of the dog the
owner must have the dog microchipped, if not already microchipped, have the microchip
identification number recorded with the Aurora Animal Services Division, and the owner
must pay the cost of impoundment and microchip the dog. If the dog is found not to be a
restricted breed or if the dog is found to be a service animal, the dog shall be released to
the owner. Notwithstanding a finding that the dog is not a restricted breed or a finding
that the dog is a service animal, a dog may be impounded and the owner may be held
responsible for violations of this section or any other applicable state or local law,
including but not limited to, the ordinances contained in chapter 14 of the Aurora Colo.
Code (the Cit Code ).
(6) Penalty. In addition to the penalty provisions provided in section 1-13 of the City
Code, any person convicted of violating this section with an unlicensed restricted breed
shall be subject to the payment of a fine of not less than $700.00. None of the minimum
monetary fines in this subsection shall be suspended by the municipal court and the
penalties in this subsection may be imposed in addition to the court-ordered euthanasia
provided in section 14-4.
Section 3. The City Code of the City of Aurora, Colorado, is hereby amended by addto to
and deleting from subsection (1)(a) of section 14-73, which subsections shall read as follows:
Sec. 14-73. Reckless Dog Owner.
(1) Any person convicted of:
434
a. A conviction of section 14-6. 14-7, 14-8, 14-12, 14-13, or 14-71, or 14-75 of
Chapter 14 of the City Code three (3) or more times in a twenty-four (24) month period; or
b. A conviction of section 14-9, when the conviction is failing to remove the
excrement in a kennel an animal is living in.
c. A conviction of section 14-7, Keeping potentially dangerous, aggressive, or
dangerous animals, two (2) or more times in any five (5) year period shall be declared a
reckless dog owner.
Section 4. Pursuant to Section 5-5 of the Charter of the City of Aurora, Colorado, the
second publication of this Ordinance shall be by reference, utilizing the ordinance title. Copies of
this Ordinance are available at the Office of the City Clerk.
Section 5. All acts, orders, resolutions, ordinances, or parts thereof, in conflict with this
Ordinance or with any of the documents hereby approved, are hereby repealed only to the extent
of such conflict. This repealer shall not be construed as reviving any resolution, ordinance, or part
thereof, heretofore repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this _____ day of
____________, 2020.
PASSED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this ______ day of ____________, 2020.
__________________________________
MIKE COFFMAN, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
SUSAN BARKMAN, Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
TIM JOYCE, Assistant City Attorney
435
